hans98ko Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · That new Sigma 50 1.4 Art is a great lens. | |
Vancouver47 wrote:
This is hilarious, One thing that is abundantly clear from this very thorough review of a bunch of 50 something lenses is the "Nifty Fifty" would kill the Nikkor58. except for bokeh below f/1.8. The surprise is that it's not bokeh on the Nikkor 58. It's so bad wide open you can't tell the centre from the bokeh.
http://text.flowtographyberlin.de/zeiss-otus-vs-sigma-art-vs-nikkor-58/
The review summery of the Nikon 58mm/1.4G
The Nikon 58/1.4G is a joke. It’s light, but big and clunky, although the not-big lens elements inside don’t really tell you why. I’m suspecting it’s for the looks, so it can be marketed for 1,600 Euros or 1,700 USD. There are only two good things about this lens: There is virtually no focus shift, and the bokeh is very slightly more creamy wide open – but you might also call it “blurry”. Because that’s what the things in focus are with this lens. And of what use is a lens that won’t let you distinguish bokeh from those things in focus? Seriously, though: The main point of an f/1.4 lens is to be able to shoot it wide open, and this is exactly where this product is a spectacular fail for anyone who needs to use the photos for something, say: clients. Usable results start only at f/2.8 – which is unfortunately exactly the point where the bokeh starts looking the same as that of the other Nikkors. No matter how many people see “magic” in this lens, the most magical thing about it is that someone would actually pay the insane price for this “Oh-shit-we-need-something-expensive-in-the-50-mm-range-too-can-we-quickly-design-something” lens. Excuse my sarcasm, I’m exaggerating a little – but after all, Nikon started it. Oh, I forgot: The hood does an excellent job....Show more →
I enjoy reading how he described the built of the 58mm f1.4G. To me all Nikon G lenses above $750 or S$1000 built with cheap plastic barrels are for fools, no matter how well they can perform. To list a few: 24mm f1.4G, 35mm f1.4G, 58mm f1.4G, and 85mm f1.4G are good examples. These will never last as long as those built with alloys.
We paid high prices for good lenses because they last forever, but with plastic that can deform and crack over time. Together with the O-rings for weather proofing that out gasses and leaves an oily substance on the lens.
To me the 58mm f1.4G was designed like a door pinhole viewer with tiny lens elements in a very large barrel. I bet we can squeeze everything into a 50mm f1.8G housing and sold for only $300. If you peep through the front of the lens, one will notice that the hood is totally unnecessary with the deep-well design. Ever saw a door pinhole viewer using a hood? The hood is just for ecstatic users wanting to show others that they are holding a large but extremely light and unbalanced "profoolsional" lens.
Another thing that I would like to add is about bokeh that people were talking about. As all optical designers knew, there is only sharpness or blurriness that can be obtained from a lens design. If the lens is well designed, they will promote for its sharpness. But if the lens is not so well designed, then they will promote it for its bokeh. It is easy to get the center sharp, but not so easy to get across the frame sharpness due to element curvature and large aperture opening causing softness, unless using very large and heavy elements .
So there you goes with people chasing after bokeh and paying thousands and thousands for it .
And this is coming from a long time Nikon user and one who is also involved in optical instruments design.
|